Press question mark to see available shortcut keys

I still don't understand the paradox. If the two photons in Alain Aspect's apparatus are known to be in complementary states, but the specific value of that state is otherwise unknown, then measuring any one of them allows us to infer the complementary value of its twin on the other side. Where is the paradox?

So true. Have you had anything published or tried going to an open lecture and speaking to people who do have papers published? I think you would make an outstanding teacher Barry. Also do you read papers on dark matter? If so have you read the new theory of gravity called Emergent gravity? It tries to explain some of the more curious motions of stars in galaxies.

I've long been following developments in Physics at the level of an interested observer. I mostly rely on interpretations of subject-matter experts like Brian Greene, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and classic videos of Richard Feynman. It's increasingly rare for me to pull up the original technical literature anymore.

I have not come across any recent materials on Emergent Gravity so far, but I've been enjoying a new series of videos on SpaceTime from PBS Digital.

I love Brian green,his book/T.v show really had laymons like me excited to learn more about this subject. I would ask is it ok to pick your brain in the future? I won't bombard you of course,its just when i read something by Erik p. Verlinde,i'm not 100% sure what he's trying to say.

Sure you can always give it a shot. If it's outside of something I've previously looked into, I might not have much to say, other than perhaps posing some good questions to ponder.

One of the bugaboos of science education is the introduction of metaphors that don't do justice to the underlying mathematics. Terms like "Entanglement" and "Spin" can be misleading. That's why one of the dictums in QM is "Shut up and calculate." A lot of confusion arises from trying to come up with poetic or metaphorical interpretations of the arcane mathematical models.